In an article that national cyclists’ organisation the CTC has described as “unbelievably ignorant and grotesque,” the head of the Road Haulage Association (RHA) in Scotland says cyclists should carry insurance and maintains that those using iPods and similar devices when cycling should be charged with an offence of “cycling without due care, etc.”

Phil Flanders, the RHA’s Scottish Director, also warns lorry drivers that police are acting upon helmet camera footage provided by cyclists, should a driver be “unfortunate to upset them on the roads.” The fact that police will only do so when they suspect the driver has committed an offence is not acknowledged, however.

Writing in issue 65 of transport industry magazine FACTS, ” Mr Flanders unleashes a broadside against bike riders that, coming from such a senior figure within the haulage industry, makes for depressing reading.

In his article, Mr Flanders displays some of the entrenched attitudes against bike riders that cycling campaigners and politicians in London and elsewhere are up against in trying to improve the safety of cyclists around lorries following a string of recent fatalities.

It’s a sad but inescapable fact that lorries are responsible for a disproportionate number of cycling fatalities – the CTC says HGVs make up 5 per cent of traffic, but are responsible for 19 per cent of the deaths of cyclists on Britain’s roads.

Indeed, Mr Flanders begins his piece by acknowledging, “There have been a spate of accidents involving cyclists and lorries recently,” but adds, “as usual the lorry is the big bad bogeyman.

“It reminded me of an article I read last year in New Zealand where they have a similar problem,” he continues.

The RHA director goes on to cite large parts of that article, headed Cyclists and Cars are a Fatal Mix and emphatically anti-cyclist in tone, which originally appeared in the New Zealand Herald in November 2010 and was written by the newspaper’s motoring correspondent, Eric Thompson.

“A public road with motor vehicles is no place for a cyclist, no matter how they bleat about having every right to be in the same place as a car. A cyclist will always come off second best in an accident with a motor vehicle,” wrote Mr Thompson.

“No matter whose fault it is, in any type of motor versus pushbike altercation it’s not going to take a rocket scientist to work out who’s going to end up in the back of an ambulance,” he added.

His article went on to set out a number of legal requirements that he believed bicycles and their riders should be subject to, “as other vehicles are required by law.”

Those included the fitting of rear-view mirrors, indicators, riding in single file unless overtaking, having front light on at all times [as he says other two-wheeled vehicles in New Zealand have to do, riders to pass a “road-license test,” and bikes to be registered and subject to “road tax.”

Since all those points in the New Zealand Herald article are repeated, verbatim, by Mr Flanders, without comment or qualification, it’s reasonable to assume that he’s in agreement with them.

Mr Flanders, however, does have some suggestions of his own.

“I would go further and add that all must have adequate insurance for any accidents they cause and maybe even liability insurance for those who knock people down,” he writes, although he seems to present as two different types of insurance what is essentially one and the same thing – third party liability cover, which many cyclists, such as CTC members, already carry.

“Those cyclists, and there are many, who play their iPods or other types of mobile music should also be charged for committing an offence of cycling without due care etc etc as they have no chance of hearing any vehicle approaching and are totally unaware of what is going on around them,” he adds.

Now, many cyclists agree that you shouldn’t listen to music while you ride, not least world champion Mark Cavendish, who last month said, “Don’t cycle with an iPod in, it’s dangerous!”

At present, it’s entirely legal to ride a bicycle while listening to music, just as it is legal for a lorry driver to listen to it in their cab. Of course, many riders choose not to do so on the grounds that they want to be as aware as they can of everything going on around them.

Finally, Mr Flanders warns lorry drivers: “Some [cyclists] have started to fit small video cameras to their helmets. If you are unfortunate to upset them on the roads they will report you to the authorities and will have evidence of whatever it was that you did. There are cases of this already where the police have taken action!”

That comment, presumably, isn’t aimed at those among the RHA’s membership who drive within the law and therefore have nothing to fear from the police.

In response to Mr Flanders’ comments, a spokeman for the CTC told road.cc: “This is an unbelievably ignorant and grotesque statement.

“The only accurate thing he says is that some cyclists are now recording illegal behaviour by lorry drivers using helmet cameras - implying that the incessant illegal behaviour by his members might, shock horror, actually lead to prosecution.

“We already warn cyclists to stay away from heavy vehicles - knowing that idiots like this could be behind the wheel is truly worrying."

Officially, the RHA highlights that cyclists need "to be careful around trucks," but it also states that cyclists need to be better educated about how lorries execute manoeuvres at junctions in particular. It expresses concerns about safety equipment such as sensors being the answer to improving the safety of bike riders where HGVs are concerned, and points out that "RHA Training includes cyclist awareness in its driver refresher courses."

In response to Mr Flanders' comments, the RHA said: "The article you refer to is part of a regular column and is a personal report of views from around the world on this important subject, including views from a senior safety engineer at the world's largest commercial
vehicle manufacturer. To call the article "ignorant and grotesque" does nothing to contribute to sensible debate on what is an important subject.

"The RHA is actively exploring ways to achieve greater safety of cyclists around HGVs and other freight vehicles, particularly with Transport for London and the Metropolitan Police. A longer RHA comment on this important subject, dated June 30 2011, is on our website."

I wish the RHA could discuss the need for speed dictated by poor work schedules for most haulage and white van drivers. We had a boilerman around yesterday who described his schedule for the day devised by a call centre 200 miles away rather than knowledge from him and his neighbouring driver. They criss-cross all day everyday trying to meet deadlines that each could easily cover if they were allowed input. It's no wonder delivery drivers are ploughing through cyclists all the time.

Betjeman was right in 1966 with his sarcastically titled 'Inexpensive Progress'. I wish he was around to speak up for us now. A poet lauriete who cycled would be great for us. Maybe we could buy Ms Duffy a Brompton?

Let's say goodbye to hedges
And roads with grassy edges
And winding country lanes;
Let all things travel faster
Where motor car is master
Till only Speed remains.

I for one wouldn't even consider riding in London, and avoid all busy roads when possible.
For me cycling is a sport/hobby it is only rarely a means of transport in terms of getting anywhere, I use my car as I like my body and don't really want to be almost killed or maimed every 30 seconds.
Shame but I cant see things changing anytime soon, cycling on busy roads just too dangerous in my eyes.

Wow. How do people like this get out of bed in the morning? Aren't they scared the sky might fall on their heads? After all, they ignore the evidence about how safe cycling is, so why not ignore it about the sky falling in?

The mass of Transport for London hire bikes and commuters riding west along Tavistock Place in the mornings is a sight to behold and I've not seen a crash yet. If only everywhere had that many bicycles, it would probably be pretty safe because they'd be very obvious to drivers.

I've yet to hear a convincing argument to support this. If someone's going to drive into a cyclist, they'll do it whether the rider is listening to music or not (unless they're deliberately doing it *because* the rider, (probably like the driver) is listening to music.
If the rider decides to change lanes or otherwise ride into the path of a vehicle * without using their eyes and brain*, whether they're listening to music or not, they're an idiot.

I've yet to hear a convincing argument to support this. If someone's going to drive into a cyclist, they'll do it whether the rider is listening to music or not (unless they're deliberately doing it *because* the rider, (probably like the driver) is listening to music.
If the rider decides to change lanes or otherwise ride into the path of a vehicle * without using their eyes and brain*, whether they're listening to music or not, they're an idiot.

Completely disagree. When I'm on my bike I'm always creating a picture in my mind of the traffic around me. My ears play a big part in that because I can hear traffic behind me even when I'm looking forward. My ears can alert me of danger before I've seen it with my eyes.

To put it another way, if I was deaf I would feel a lot less safe on my bike. In my view people who cycle in urban areas while listening to music have got a death wish.

So, this traffic behind you, that you can hear even when you are looking forward...what is it going to do to you, exactly? Just drive straight through you? Or does being able to hear also give you the ability to hover in the air and allow the truck that was about to hit you from behind to pass safely underneath?

I repeat. If they're going to hit you, they're going to hit you, and being able to hear that they're about to hit you won't make the slightest bit of difference, other than to give your chamois an extra pico-second of trauma. If one is putting ones self at risk by moving into the path of a vehicle without checking what's around first, *even if you can hear*, one is a numpty.

so I should just give up taking any responsiblility for my own safety and put my life in the hands of the drivers.
um, no. My point is exactly the opposite. Use your eyes (even if you can't read too well, you might be able to see cars) and take responsibility for your own safety, don't rely on your hearing. And given the pico-second warning about someone to go straight into the back of you, again, what would you do, exactly?

If I get a pico-second, or a few hundred milliseconds, or half a second or a second of extra warning, then that can be the difference between life and death. Fact.

Completely agree and this is backed up by my own experience. Tried headphones once, that was enough to convince me. You are far more vulnerable on a bike than in a car and, imho, need the availability of all your senses to aid survival.

Cyclists need to rely upon a range of senses together. Why voluntarily cut one of these out. I'd defend your right to wear earphones on your bike but I wont do it myself. Is it really worth the risk?

I do feel though that like shaved legs, some cyclists like to be seen with one earphone in for that 'pro' look. Only it's not the DS on the radio, its the missus with a Tesco order to collect on the way home from work. For the complete look you could add a strip of surgical tape over the earphone and pretend to talk to your chest from time to time.

Without wishing to labour the point, in response to Andyp I will say that hearing is important in many scenarios. Not least when you are overtaken by a lorry on a country lane. You may yield to the verge a little to ease the passage of the lorry, but because its big, slow and difficult for other cars to overtake, it may have a one or more vehicles behind it. I guarantee you'll be relying on your hearing to detect these as your eyes are concentrating on the big thing that's passing you.

Mr Flanders' attitude is as sad as it is incorrect but to see fellow cyclists with earphones in worries me.

@ AndyP - By all means listen to your iPod when out on the bike and use your eyes. But your ears are also important. I can hear cars accelerating, decelerating on the approach to pinch points and roundabouts. Drivers revving their engine behind me have earned a long over the shoulder and you know what they stop revving. My ears being unblocked from other distraction gives me extra time to re- position myself on the road it also allows me to hear a fellow cyclist approach from behind and allows me to warn of obstructions or pull over to let them safely pass me.

a) Don't use the ones that seal the ear canal.
b) Have the music very quiet.

The only time I've worn them whilst cycling has been during the occasional solo century(+) training rides on my own, on some overly familiar or not especially interesting roads. It's akin to having a transistor radio playing in the next room, as far as volume levels go i.e. I can hear the music, but can also hear the nuances of engine noise around me, or the click of a shifter, or whatever.

I wouldn't like to think I was being unreasonably judged, just because I happened to want to subdue the boredom or stave off 'the voices'. I'm making a judgement call, in much the same way I wouldn't listen to music in a car at a volume level that would stop me from hearing the horn of another vehicle, or the shout of a pedestrian, for example.

One point with regards to people cycling whilst listening to music/speaking books etc, are you saying that deaf people are not allowed to cycle or drive on the roads. Lets face it when the moron in the car hits you it's not going to make an ounce of difference if your listening to the sound of his/her untaxed uninsured chave mobile or your favourite piece of music.

@fatbeggaronabike - no, that is not what is being said. Folk that are deaf are much more aware of what happens around them visually. An individual who has no issues hearing will not put greater emphasis on sight but be caught up on the playlist. If you watch a deaf cyclist you will see a lot more head movement. Same applies to blind cyclists being taken out on tandems - they will hear stuff quicker than the 'eyes' of the bike.

Mr Flanders has made an ill thought statement and quite possibly a personal viewpoint that is not in line with the RHA's approach to cyclists. Hopefuully Oldridgeback will get some sence from the horses mouth.

What an ignorant rant by Mr Flanders.
I did wonder if he had tried to fit every ill-informed anti cyclist rant in one article.

Finally, Mr Flanders warns lorry drivers: “Some [cyclists] have started to fit small video cameras to their helmets. If you are unfortunate to upset them on the roads they will report you to the authorities and will have evidence of whatever it was that you did. There are cases of this already where the police have taken action!”

So Mr Flanders doesn't like it when cyclists have evidence of poor driving. Oh dear

I did like the way when he taled about liability insurance, he didn't mention how little it is for cyclists compared to motorvehicles. That more than anything else show the damage caused by each.

Mr Flanders is either unbelievably ignorant or has an agenda to drive cyclists off the road, or both. We should remember that the RHA is a trade body, and as such its overriding purpose is to further the interests of its members. The tactic he uses is to use trivial issues to distract from the key issue on road safety, which is? - that it is motor vehicles that kill and HGVs are the most dangerous motor vehicles. Getting drawn into discussing issues like cyclists wearing earphones and cycle insurance, is a complete red herring in the context of road safety. Unfortunately the "roads are made for cars and lorries" lobby is very succesful in getting their view across and this sort of distraction is one of their key methods. I think we have a long hard job to do in challenging this sort of nonsense. We should focus on the FACTS:
1. MOTOR VEHICLES cause virtually all the casualties on roads.
2. HGVs are the most dangerous motor vehicles.
3. Since cyclists rarely cause any injuries, changing legislation regarding cyclists, whether it is insurance or headphones or anything else to do with cyclists is largely irrelevant, and won't lead to any noticeable improvement in road safety.
4. For similar reasons to 3. above, increasing enforcement of cycling breaches won't have any significant effect on road safety.
5. Roads were NOT made for cars, cyclists came first, cyclists brought about the big improvements in road surfaces and cyclists have a right to be on the road.
6. If cyclists are at at too much risk as Mr Flanders suggests, the answer is to remove or reduce the risk, not the cyclists (what will be next? a ban on horses using roads?)
7. My personal view is that we need to introduce a rule that "moving motor vehicles are always at fault when in collision with a cyclist". This sounds extreme, but in practice it is just common sense.

Whilst Flanders' comments are not welcomed by any of us, let's not risk a backlash that involves falling out with the whole HGV community. I find that generally (there can be exceptions) they are professional, courteous and thoughtful drivers. I would prefer to keep it that way (we are too soft and squidy to start a fight). White van man is an entirely different kettle of fish...

Whilst I wouldn't recommend cycling with headphones of any sort, being deaf doesn't prevent anyone having a driving license, or for that matter, cycling. If anyone riding a motorcycle values their hearing, earplugs are a good idea. The man's an utter moron.

"Grumpyoldbiker" sums it up all very well. This is the type of ignorant comment that one hears in the dodgy sort of pub so it makes one wonder where RHA members spend their leisure time. I'll pick out just a couple of aspects. Firstly, how can a senior RHA figure believe that there is such a thing as "road tax"? The answer can only be total ignorance of the UK's fiscal arrangements. Secondly, why should he be so concerned about cameras? It is the very absence of camera evidence of incidents that prevents courts understanding just what did occur. One has to suspect that he knows that the behaviour of his members' drivers will be shown to be improper.

However, we should take heart. When an organisation states that an opinion is a personal one and then goes on to make conciliatory comments it is corporate-speak for: "We know that this man has made a prat of himself and embarrassed the organisation. We will make that clear to him but we cannot give him a public dressing down".

Excellent post by Grumpyoldbiker. Flanders is writing from a blinkered and polarised position, which is far from constructive.

The "roads are made for cars and lorries" lobby are not only influential but have the tacit support of a large proportion of people who drive (needless to say, none of whom cycle regularly on the road). Every impatient driver that pushes past or beeps the cyclist wants to drive home the message that the latter really shouldn't be there. That really gets my goat!

While HGVs make up 5% of London traffic they are involved in nearly half of all road deaths. That suggests to me that something needs to change! The driver that killed Eilidh Cairns killed a pedestrian in June yet his defective eyesight meant he shouldn't have been driving that vehicle on either occasion.

Regarding 7. RoadPeace and others have been campaigning for Stricter Liability for some time. It's not a magic bullet, it's one of many things that would bring about change for the better. Another thing that might do it is if Mr Flanders was forced to cycle to work

Flanders is writing from a blinkered and polarised position, which is far from constructive.

Totally agree. But I think we cyclists are also guilty of promoting polarised positions which are far from constructive e.g. suggesting that there should be an automatic presumption of guilt placed on the driver. Personally, I don't see how this would improve cycling safety.

Presumably the argument goes something like this: if drivers know that they will be presumed guilty in the event of a collision with a cyclist, then they will drive more carefully when around cyclists.

I reckon that is just wishful thinking though. The vast majority of accidents are just that - accidents. I have never once thought to myself that I can drive in a dangerous way just because there is a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. So I would have no reason to believe that a presumption of guilt would improve driving standards.

Flanders is writing from a blinkered and polarised position, which is far from constructive.

Totally agree. But I think we cyclists are also guilty of promoting polarised positions which are far from constructive e.g. suggesting that there should be an automatic presumption of guilt placed on the driver.

You forget that most cyclists are also drivers. There are very few cyclists with a witch-hunting mentality. If you are referring to Stricter Liability then you have misunderstood it.

Quote:

The vast majority of accidents are just that - accidents.

Most collisions are not intentional but that's a long way from saying they are not preventable. Huge efforts are made to avoid accidents in the workplace but too many people are unwilling to apply the same conscientious behaviour when behind the wheel of a car/van/lorry. I'm sure the vast majority of the incidents, including those that cause death and injury, are preventable.

Each driver has a responsibility towards every other road user, whether cyclists, pedestrians or vehicle occupants. So why is speeding, talking on mobiles, cutting people up, overtaking on blind bends and double white lines etc etc so common?

Perhaps you'd like to consider the days when drink-driving was more common, and deaths caused by drunk drivers much higher. They were still 'accidents'. Do you think that driving under the influence is acceptable?

To call the article "ignorant and grotesque" does nothing to contribute to sensible debate on what is an important subject.

Utterly priceless comment from the spokesman, considering the buffoon at the the RHA who wrote the article sparked it off. No buffoon, no article, no criticism - this seems to have escaped the fool of a spokesman.

You forget that most cyclists are also drivers. There are very few cyclists with a witch-hunting mentality. If you are referring to Stricter Liability then you have misunderstood it.

I was referring to comments on here that drivers should automatically be blamed for any collision with a cyclist. In my opinion that is wrong, and far from constructive. As for Stricter Liability, I've not misunderstood it. I simply don't agree with it, and I don't believe it will make cycling safer in any meaningful way.

Quote:

Perhaps you'd like to consider the days when drink-driving was more common, and deaths caused by drunk drivers much higher. They were still 'accidents'. Do you think that driving under the influence is acceptable?

Glad you brought that up, because it illustrates my point. Drink driving has been illegal in the UK since 1925. But the illegality of it did not stop people from driving under the influence in any significant numbers. The thing that has reduced drink driving more than anything else is the cultural shift that has taken place in the last couple of decades. Society itself now stigmatises drink drivers, and it is this cultural shift that has reduced the incidence of its occurrence.

We need a similar cultural shift for society to accept cyclists, and even to prioritise them over other road users. But such cultural shifts are rarely brought about by legislation. We need serious investment in education, creating awareness, building infrastructure and, more than anything else, actually getting far more people to cycle in this country.

Do you silly cyclists realize how difficult it is for a RHA driver to concentrate on his newspaper when you insist on hogging your cycle lanes. It's hard enough to balance a tabloid on the steering wheel as it is.

Blimey, this has prompted some debate - and rightly so, some of the man's comments are ridiculous.

The worst has to be that there is no place on the road for cyclists.

Where then ? On the footpath ? (That's if there is one)

Is he advocating a total ban on cycling on the road ?

I have just pasted this from the RHA web-site !

"3. Cycling and their interaction with HGVs has taken much of our attention over the past year or more. We have been engaged in extensive discussions about the safety of cyclists with Transport for London and others, including the cycling lobby groups. We have also been in discussions with other regional authorities in the UK and with the Department for Transport.

4. We recognise the significance of the resurgence in cycling in recent years - which has been given such an added boost this summer by the country’s outstanding success at the Olympics. Improving the safety and enjoyment cycling by large numbers of people is an issue that will remain firmly on the agenda of policy makers and of road planners and designers. In the past year or so, the issue has also become more prominent in the minds of truck operators and drivers that it had been.

5. We welcome the increased attention that has been given to the consequences of HGVs and cyclists coming together in an accident. The increased profile given to the issue in the general media in London and to operators is surely one reason why Richmond councillor Katharine Harborne was able to tell the committee on July 12: “There have been six deaths in London this year from cycling. None of those have involved a lorry. By this time last year there had been 13 deaths involving 5 lorries, so things have certainly improved.”

"... one reason why Richmond councillor Katharine Harborne was able to tell the committee on July 12: “There have been six deaths in London this year from cycling. None of those have involved a lorry..."

That's wrong for a start. According to The Times, there was a cyclist killed by a tipper lorry in Southall on 5 July.

And the danger certainly hasn't gone away - more recently, in the past month alone three London cyclists have been killed by lorries.

The RHA of course is a national organisation - more than 20 riders in the UK have now lost their lives to lorries so far in 2012, again sourced from The Times.